Let me give the House just one example from the records of the Aims of Industry of one such meeting which they organised. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough is standing at the coming Election—generally speaking, he is—on the issue of his difference with the Government over the nationalisation of steel, and yet this non-political organisation saw fit to organise in his own constituency a meeting on steel. This is the account which they themselves give of that: Publicity took the form of bill posting on every available hoarding within a 10-mile radius of Middlesbrough…. Posters were of three different designs on a 16 sheet size "— a very large size of poster— and these posters occupied 155 sites for three complete weeks before the meeting and were supplemented by 1,000 double crown posters over the same period. I have to give this estimate rather diffidently, because I have not had this display priced, but I understand that the cost of the display alone would be something like £500. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."]

We are not, of course, arguing—nor can we argue I think, on this Motion—any question of law in regard to election expenses. That is quite outside our ambit. What we are saying in regard to this Motion is that, whether or not such expenses should ultimately count in election expenses, at any rate it should be known by the people of this country who incurred those expenses and on whose behalf. No doubt, having to drop this non-political mask would be very embarrassing for the Aims of Industry. They manage to get over a number of political broadcasts by pretending to be impartial. In their annual report for 1949. they boast: Since August, 1948, to date Aims of Industry have provided speakers, facilities, contacts, scripts and ideas for a total of 63 broadcasts on industrial and allied subjects on the Home and Light programmes. When an organisation boasts that it can obtain facilities for broadcasts—and one of those they discussed obtaining facilities for is a steel industry broadcast—through B.B.C. "contacts," is it not time that we at least asked them to publish their expenses? Is it not time that this farce of pretending that these organisations of big businessmen are non-political was ended? Why, their own side do not even now pretend to believe in it. In the November issue of the "Commercial Motor" their political correspondent. "Janus," says: There is another expression: 'Of course this isn't being political,' much used in transport circles of late, particularly when the conversation has turned to the future of the industry, or to nationalisation. Any sentiment likely to gladden the heart of one or other of the political leaders is hastily followed by a deceptively frank avowal of political disinterestedness. It is as much a ritual as throwing spilt salt over the left shoulder. He goes on to say, quite frankly: The Conservative Party promise to be the answer to the hauliers' prayer. Any financial contribution he makes towards its success may be partly selfish, but is wholly natural. Surely this cannot be true. By subscribing to Tory Party funds are the hauliers going to get some commercial advantage which they would not get if they did not do so?

I hope that for the sake of democracy every party will join us in the Lobby tonight. The right hon. Member for Woodford ended a recent appeal to his own party by a quotation from his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. On the centenary of his birth, perhaps it is worth while repeating to the House Lord Randolph's words on another occasion: There is no instance in history, of power placed in the hands of a self-constituted and irresponsible body being used otherwise than unwisely at first, and corruptly at last. Let hon. Members on all sides of the House think of that when they come to vote.